Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Part 1 - Medford's Long Pathetic History of Censorship - Editorial by Joe Viglione

By Information Central February 24, 2016

628,759 @ 5:30 pm
628,747 @ 5:14 pm
628,740 @ 5:06 pm

628,719 @ 4:50 pm

31,002 past 30 days

21 page views, 16 minutes

Medford's Long and Pathetic History of Squelching Free Speech - Part 1

by award-winning public access TV host
Joseph Viglione

Photo of Joe Viglione on Boston Free Radio 2/24/16 (C)2016 all rights reserved

Joe Viglione on the air in Somerville as there is a huge
media blackout in the city of Medford, Massachusetts

Looking at City Hall with Mark Rumley as Solicitor and a blatant denial of a citizen's free speech rights.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. Middlesex, SS.
No. 200500163F. (Mass. Cmmw. Jan 30, 2007)

VOIGT V. CITY OF MEDFORD

To their credit, Penta, Muccini-Burke, Lungo-Koehn and Uncle Bob all voted in the affirmative.

In defensive of Michael Marks, he was under Camuso's spell for awhile and - thankfully - got to understand the error of his ways; since Marks has traveled away from "the dark side," he has been a true champion.

But Marks was even critical of ye olde editor before he saw the light...and we don't stop reminding him of that fact!!!
____________________________________

City Councilors Burke, Maiocco, Lungo, and Penta voted in the affirmative, and Councilors Marks, Camuso, and Carr voted in the negative.

6.General Laws, chapter 40A, section 9 requires a two-thirds vote in order for a special permit to issue in boards with more than five members. Here, the Board was comprised of seven members and four voted in favor of Voigt, which rendered Voigt's petition one vote short of approval. City Councilors Burke, Maiocco, Lungo, and Penta voted in the affirmative, and Councilors Marks, Camuso, and Carr voted in the negative.

Cheryl Voigt¹ v. City of Medford et al.²

d/b/a Lucky's Tattoo.

Medford City Council and Stephanie Muccini Burke, Michael J. Marks, Robert A. Maiocco, Breanna Lungo, Robert Penta, William Carr, and Paul Camuso, members of the Medford City Council.

No. 200500163F.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. Middlesex, SS.

January 30, 2007.

https://casetext.com/case/voigt-v-city-of-medford

Tattooing Is a Constitutionally Protected Form of Expression and Therefore May Not Be Regulated through the Application of the Traditional Broad Discretion Given to Zoning Authorities Over the Granting of Special Permits. Zoning — Ordinances — Misc. Cases —

Where was Mark Rumley to protesteth too much????? with

“The one sentiment that I have heard that I take great exception to is that the city is trying to limit speech,” said Rumley. “The notion the city would censor or squelch free speech is baseless and as city solicitor I would find any such effort repugnant.”

Tattooing Is a Constitutionally Protected Form of Speech and Therefore May Not Be Regulated through the Application of the Traditional Broad Discretion Given to Zoning Authorities Over the Granting of Special Permits. The operation of a tattooing parlor constitutes a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. This opinion holds that a local zoning ordinance authorizing tattooing parlors by special permit, with the granting of such a permit subject to the traditional broad discretion given zoning authorities with respect to special permits for any *123 authorized activity, constitutes an overly broad and therefore unconstitutional prior restraint on the right to free speech.
________________________________________________________________
Was not Mark E. Rumley, Lex Luthor, the Free Speech advocate our City Solicitor?
___________________________________________________
City Solicitor Mark E. Rumley / Medford Daily Mercury on or about Nov. 16, 2008 (quoted from the 2nd Judge Jackson-Thompson hearing) saying:

_________________________

Cheryl Voight didn't get her tattoo parlor, but she did get a lot of money out of Medford City Hall for stomping on her First Amendment rights to have a such an outlet.

In 2003 this editor first met Human Rights Commissioner Diane McLeod as well as Mark E. Rumley, the 14 year or so "city solicitor," now named "Lex Luthor" after his performance with the overloading microphone last night at the Committee of the Whole meeting, popping his p's and making a general spectacle of himself again.

Sports host Johnny Byers said on the phone "Boy does Rumley look like he has aged!" and he got no argument here, that's why the new name "Lex Luthor." Mark Rumley looks like the poor man's (uncle) Gene Hackman (not McGillicuddy) with that "new look," of the Old Man in the N.H. Mountain...after it fell and broke into a bunch of pieces.

Look, no politician is being "targeted," so let's get the
Medford smear spin out of the way right now. How is calling Rumley "Lex Luthor" any more of a target than having Paul Donato upside down for the Dalai Lama, an ex-city councilor with a butcher knife in his hand going after his own grandma (allegedly,) or painting Stephanie Burke (as here) pictured as a daffodil?

Daffodils are very pretty flowers...they just stand for someone being "daffy," which Mrs. Burke certainly has proved to be over 7 short weeks as a charlatan mayor of Medfraud.
___________________________________________

This is a huge story, so the ongoing editorial is going to take a few days to discuss BUT FOR A CITY SOLICITOR LIKE LEX "MARK E. RUMLEY" LUTHOR TO PROTESTETH TOO MUCH THAT HE IS THE BIG FREE SPEECH PROPONENT...

AND THEN TO HAVE FUMBLES FUMLEY, OL' LEX, TRY TO SHUT ME DOWN DURING A MEDFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY PUBLIC HEARING (did Rumley violate the open meeting law TARGETING only one speaker, yours truly?) and then to have Fumbles Lex Luthor-Rumley allegedly being city solicitor during the Cheryl Voight debacle, you do the math!

Cheryl Voight, paraphrased from the Medford Transcript (have to go into Archive.org for that one now) "They were being bullies; and someone told them they can't be that!"

to be continued...bet on it...probably later tonight.
___________________________________
https://casetext.com/case/voigt-v-city-of-medford

Voigt filed suit with this Court against, the City on January 18, 2005. Voigt alleged four counts in her complaint: violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (count one), violations of Voigt's right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (count two), violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (count three), and violations of G.L.c. 40A and the Medford Zoning Ordinance (count four). Voigt now seeks summary judgment on counts one, two, and three of her complaint.

________________________________________________________________
w ...

[DOC]See the entire agenda here. - InsideMedford.com

insidemedford.com/wp-content/.../08/councilagendaaugust72007.doc

On September 3, 2004 the claimant, Cheryl Voight, filed a request for a special permit with the Medford City Council to operate a tattoo and body piercing ...